HB 2414 -- BI-STATE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
SPONSOR: Chappelle-Nadal
This bill prohibits the bi-state development agency from using any of its powers or money to fund or operate any street railway or trolley bus. This prohibition does not apply to any metropolitan railway or heavy rail system.
The way that is phrased the bill would prohibit bi-state from operating the Loop Trolley even if they're not paying for it. How does that make any sense?quincunx wrote: ↑Feb 18, 2020There's a bill:
https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB2 ... 020&code=R
HB 2414 -- BI-STATE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
SPONSOR: Chappelle-Nadal
This bill prohibits the bi-state development agency from using any of its powers or money to fund or operate any street railway or trolley bus. This prohibition does not apply to any metropolitan railway or heavy rail system.
Jesus, what an imbecile tweet.
I don't disagree with your overall point...but any dedicated routes (especially BRT) are still going to have to be planned through EWG. And it's not exactly like there's money for the inexpensive stuff either. The county is talking about bonding out the settlement to that police Sargent that won that $10 million judgment. These things are all great ideas (certainly better than the trolley), but still have to be budgeted for, vetted by the public, the BoA the County Council, etc. It's not like Page and Krewson could start painting bus lanes tomorrow.LithiumAneurysm wrote: ↑Feb 18, 2020There are certainly more incremental things Krewson and Page could be doing. Adding dedicated cross-city bus lanes would go a long way to accomplishing the goals of N/S MetroLink at a tiny fraction of the cost. Collaboration between the city, county, and Bi-State on bus lanes (or even Bus Rapid Transit) could remake the transit experience without reliance on enormous slow-moving federal grants. The cost would be traffic engineering, fancy red paint, and labor... not much more expensive than a typical street repaving/repainting project, something the city does multiple times annually.
My point is that there are incremental improvements to transit in St. Louis that could be done tomorrow. Honestly, this region would benefit from a focus on affordable improvements to the existing network instead of complex construction projects like N/S or the Trolley. Slow, infrequent, and unpleasant local bus service is the number one liability for the Metro system, above safety concerns and N/S. It's critical.
Haha yes, not literally tomorrow (though that'd be amazing). But the turnaround on these "cheap" projects would certainly be faster than the crawl of North/South MetroLink or other big capital projects. I've been impressed by how quickly other cities have been able to slap down bike and bus lanes, but I recognize a funding stream has to be dedicated in the first place.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Feb 19, 2020I don't disagree with your overall point...but any dedicated routes (especially BRT) are still going to have to be planned through EWG. And it's not exactly like there's money for the inexpensive stuff either. The county is talking about bonding out the settlement to that police Sargent that won that $10 million judgment. These things are all great ideas (certainly better than the trolley), but still have to be budgeted for, vetted by the public, the BoA the County Council, etc. It's not like Page and Krewson could start painting bus lanes tomorrow.
Early plans call for a 4 day (Thursday thru Sunday) schedule. The local FTA admin has said this may be enough to keep the region in compliance, but needs to see a detailed plan first. If not, the feds could start attempting to claw that money back.Edwards said the trolley may be able to operate now without a bailout. What’s changed is the sales tax district along the trolley route raises tax revenue to support the trolley whether it runs or not.
And over the first quarter, the district has replenished its coffers with new revenues from the one-cent sales tax to the extent that relaunching the line would be feasible, Edwards said. The Post-Dispatch has requested more detailed information about the district’s current financial status. Edwards said the district was projected to raise more than $900,000 this year.
Have to agree, time to think in terms of what the Loop Trolley is really trying to accomplish first, second if it makes sense as tourist trolley to extend into Forest Park to build upon that mission, and third if it really makes sense as a greater transit mission but first operate as a tourist line supporting development and like museum district get rid of the fare box to get in.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Mar 10, 2020Depending on how difficult it is to staff, only running the trolley during peak parts of the year could make a lot of sense and be more sustainable than convincing people to ride in the winter time. NOW MAKE IT FREE
Will not stop talking about expansion into Forest Park. My logic, when is the last time that any politician has said no to major donations as far as Forest Park Forever goes?.chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Mar 11, 2020Can we please stop tossing out the idea of expanding the trolley as a solution at this point? While I understand and agree with the underlying logic, It's simply not going to happen anytime soon as there's zero political goodwill for that to occur. The trolley will need to prove, over multiple years in my opinion, that it can function within the current system before any politician will even remotely support an expansion.
